New England editorial roundup

Freedom of the press in the United States decreased profoundly in 2013, according to a new report from "Reporters Without Borders."

The United States plummeted 13 places — to number 46 on the Global Press Freedom Ranking. We now sit uncomfortably between Romania and Haiti.

The dramatic fall was "one of the most significant declines" in the world, the report said. It says the Obama Administration's attack on journalists and whistleblowers — as manifest in various prosecution and seizure of reporters' records — has had an outright chilling effect.

"Freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices. Investigative journalism often suffers as a result," the report says.

"In the United States, 9/11 spawned a major conflict between the imperatives of national security and the principles of the constitution's First Amendment. This amendment enshrines every person's right to inform and be informed. But the heritage of the 1776 constitution was shaken to its foundations during George W. Bush's two terms as president by the way journalists were harassed and even imprisoned for refusing to reveal their sources or surrender their files to federal judicial officials.

"There has been little improvement in practice under Barack Obama. Rather than pursuing journalists, the emphasis has been on going after their sources, but often using the journalist to identify them. No fewer than eight individuals have been charged under the Espionage Act since Obama became president, compared with three during Bush's two terms. While 2012 was in part the year of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 2013 will be remember for the National Security Agency computer specialist Edward Snowden, who exposed the mass surveillance methods developed by the U.S. intelligence agencies.

"The whistleblower is the enemy. Hence the 35-year jail term imposed on Private Chelsea/Bradley Manning for being the big WikiLeaks source, an extremely long sentence but nonetheless small in comparison with the 105-year sentence requested for freelance journalist Barrett Brown in a hacking case. Amid an all-out hunt for leaks and sources, 2013 will also be the year of The Associated Press scandal, which came to light when the Department of Justice acknowledged that it had seized the news agency's phone records."

These developments have stamped out information, at the point of origination, by making would-be whistleblowers too fearful of their government to speak against it. That is the textbook definition of tyranny and should frighten everyone.

The Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Feb. 13, 2014

There is a cynical phenomenon in Congress that the New York Times described as the "Vote No, Hope Yes Caucus."

This is when politicians really want a bill to pass but really don't want their fingerprints on it. The legislation in question is likely good for the country but bad for the pols' re-election chances. And if it has enough support to pass without these brave lawmakers' support, they'll vote no, all the while hoping that "yes" will prevail. After watching the shenanigans in the U.S. Senate this week, it's clear the "Vote No, Hope Yes" crowd was out in full force.

Sad to say, it appears New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte was among the members.

At issue was the measure to raise the nation's debt limit — an oldie but a goodie. The legislation allows the government to keep borrowing and, as a result, to keep paying its bills. It's not about running up additional debt — it's about not defaulting on spending that the government has already committed to. In the past, at least, such a measure was considered routine: Before this week, Congress has voted to raise the debt ceiling 19 times since 1993.

The measure passed — but with scant GOP support. Among those voting "No" on the key procedural vote in the Senate was Ayotte — the same senator who staked out a position as the voice of reason a few months back when bomb throwers in her party precipitated a government shutdown. After all, as she argued at the time, an economic or governmental crisis was in no one's interest — least of all her party's.

On this week's debt ceiling vote, Ayotte initially kept her own counsel. She was described by Politico as undecided. But after ultimately voting no, Ayotte explained via Twitter: "Today's legislation did absolutely nothing to get our fiscal house in order and address our $17 trillion debt — and that's why I voted against it."

And, she said, "Since I ran for office I've said that when we raise debt limit, we owe it to Americans — especially our children — to address underlying drivers of debt."

At least one New Hampshire Republican, Dan Innis, a candidate for the 1st District seat in Congress, had a different view — even amid his quest to win the support of GOP voters: "A debt default would trigger a financial crisis that would do immediate harm to our economy and negatively impact the lives of all Americans," he said after the House vote. "Failing to raise the debt ceiling does nothing to address the two underlying big problems that Washington currently faces — a failure to cut spending responsibly and a failure of presidential leadership.

In this round, it's Innis's view that makes more sense. And Ayotte no doubt knows it.

In the end, Congress approved the increase in the debt ceiling, President Obama will sign it, and life will go on. A bigger question remains, however. If lawmakers continue to see an advantage in voting "no" for measures they know should get a "yes" — even a measure as basic as keeping the economy from falling apart — how will Congress move forward on anything else?